On March 19, GM put a halt on Chevrolet Volt production in order to get rid of some of the older versions of the plug-in electric hybrid and make room for those with the recent battery fix. Also, new Volts with the changes made for the California market are making their way into the inventory.

The production halt was expected to last for four weeks. However, new reports show that Volt production will resume a few days earlier than planned. GM has already started notifying Detroit-Hamtramck plant employees, where the Volt is assembled.

It's a good time to bring Volt production back to life, since it seems that Volt popularity has risen recently. In March, U.S. Volt sales shot up to 2,289, which is its best month yet since release. Of that total, 2,129 were sold to retail customers while 160 were sold to fleet customers.

This surge in sales couldn't have come at a better time, either. The Volt had a difficult year throughout much of 2011 and during the beginning of 2012 due to problems with battery fires.

In May 2011, Chevrolet's Volt caught fire three weeks after a side-impact crash test conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Volt was parked in a NHTSA testing facility in Wisconsin, and was so severe that it ended up catching nearby cars on fire as well. This led to an investigation into the safety of lithium batteries.

GM moved quickly, offering loaner vehicles to customers and even buying Volts back from scared owners. In January 2012, GM recalled 8,000 Volts off the road as well as another 4,400 for sale in showrooms to fix the batteries. The fix entailed the addition of steel to the plate that protects the EV's T-shaped, 400-pound battery. This aimed to prevent penetration into the battery in case of an auto accident, and would stop both coolant from leaking and would evenly distribute the force of a crash.

Besides the fact that NASA has already released a report citing climate hasn't changed in 10 years, the fact of the matter is, producing the batteries actually outputs the same CO2 footprint than a gasoline engine for life! True story!http://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/06/17/electric-cars-...

quote: increase peace and decrease military expenditures

WTF? Heard of Iran? I don't think they think your chevy Volt does such thing!

Not isolated either. Seems to be a prevelant conclusions throughout numerous of thier publications. The Author of you linked article seems be distorting thier numbers. (Who thinks a car doesn't last at least 150,000 miles these days?!? Are people blind to the fact that the average US car is ~10 years old?!? )

quote: EVs don't require Rare Earth Metals. The Tesla Model S will have next to no rare earth metals. On top of that, Australia, Canada and the US all have large assests of rare earth metals.

Cause everyone can go out and buy a Tesla.. right? AS for the Prius, Volt, and every other EV on the road... yeah, rare earth materials!

"Nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are used in gas-electrics like Toyota Prius and Ford Escape hybrids, use large quantities of the rare earth element lanthanum in their battery chemistries. (The Prius is believed to use at least 22 pounds of the mineral.)"

Oops!

As for the mining of this material... when you can push the environmentalists aside, using US assets may be a viable option... but until then, our automobile energy will be imported just the same.

Except, you left out the carbon footprint of just creating the battery in your quote! Try reading the rest of the article and read the chart.

"The report, being released as part of the LowCVP Annual Conference 2011 on 9 June, highlights the increasing importance of accounting for whole life carbon emissions to compare the greenhouse gas emissions of low carbon vehicles. The study found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low carbon vehicles is offset by increased emissions created during their production, and to a lesser extent, disposal."

Your right of course. NiMH batteries used primarily in hybrids designed prior to 2010 have large amounts of "rare" earth metals.

Of course, Lithium type batteries do not.

EVs all use LITHIUM batteries. Most Hybrids, even mild Hybrids, use LITHIUM batteries. Most Lithium comes from ChiLE not ChiNA.

quote: As for the mining of this material... when you can push the environmentalists aside, using US assets may be a viable option... but until then, our automobile energy will be imported just the same.

22 lbs is about 4 gallons of gas. GOSH! Oh Noes! We switched 100s of gallons of gas for 22 lbs of material! Oh wait, we don't have to use that material? We don't have to use rare earth at all? We can even develop other technologies that can be easily retrofited that don't even use Lithium? We can completely recycle existing Lithium batteries?!?

The whole rare earth thing is a red herring. It more important to the electronic component areas than EVs. All the rare earth metals in a Volt for instance account for ~200 dollars of the price. Even if this trippled, thats a very small slice of price. Some electrical components (like harddrives for example) contain significantly greater fractions of rare earth materials. But it does sound catched "rare" making it plump for a media headline.

quote: Except, you left out the carbon footprint of just creating the battery in your quote! Try reading the rest of the article and read the chart.

Except I didn't. Maybe try page 49.

Its absolutely true that it takes more energy and thus more CO2 to make EVs. But over a actual lifetime (150,000 miles), EVs destroy conventional cars when comparing Apples to Oranges. The study I linked to looks at 2 other studies and performs thier own analysis. Each of the three conclude the same thing. EVs have significantly lower Carbon Footprints for lifetime CO2. Just not as low as might be implied by current labeling.

quote: "The report, being released as part of the LowCVP Annual Conference 2011 on 9 June, highlights the increasing importance of accounting for whole life carbon emissions to compare the greenhouse gas emissions of low carbon vehicles. The study found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low carbon vehicles is offset by increased emissions created during their production, and to a lesser extent, disposal."

Friend, I've bolded the whole problem with your reading of these studies. Some not all.

You take this statement to mean that somehow the study found that EVs produces the same or more C02 emissions than conventional gasoline.

The study does not say this. It says the reverse. It says EVs, even after accounting for all the extra costs of producing and disposing and electrical generation produce significantly lower CO2 than any other type of motoring.

WOW dude... I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but you really are grasping here.

quote: 22 lbs is about 4 gallons of gas. GOSH! Oh Noes! We switched 100s of gallons of gas for 22 lbs of material!

When you bank on this "metal" as the long term solution for ALL vehicles, you won't be so sarcastic. As I've said before and I'll say again, there's a slight bit of irony building on a material with "rare" in the name. No one will be buying the Tesla..

quote: Friend, I've bolded the whole problem with your reading of these studies. Some not all.

.Friend.. I've bolded the point you clearly keep missing:

"The report, being released as part of the LowCVP Annual Conference 2011 on 9 June, highlights the increasing importance of accounting for whole life carbon emissions to compare the greenhouse gas emissions of low carbon vehicles. The study found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low carbon vehicles is offset by increased emissions created during their production, and to a lesser extent, disposal."

The CO2 reduction you THINK you get by driving an EV to save the planet is OFFSET by the amount of CO2 it took to create the EV during production. Are you getting this yet? It's not saying EVs produce less CO2 (under normal driving conditions compared to gasoline engines). IT SAYS THE CO2 FOOTPRINT FROM PRODUCTION TO DISPOSAL IS "ABOUT THE SAME" AS A GAS ENGINE. Christ dude.. its your article... read it!

"The LCVP study found that a midsized electric car will produce 23.1 tons of CO2 over its lifetime whereas a similar sized gas powered vehicle will produce 24 tons. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed. Currently manufactured EV operate on batteries that must be replaced after as soon as three years of use. Factor in the emissions created by producing the second battery and the total CO2 from making an EV rises to 12.6 tons. Compare this to an average of 5.6 tons of CO2 to produce a conventional gas powered vehicle. Disposal of an EV produces roughly double the emissions of a gas powered car due to the amount of energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. I should note at this point that the study did take into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed."

Who did that study? The same folks that proposed that a Hummer is more ecologically sound than a Prius? That Hummer "study" was debunked so many times the authors are probably still spinning at 7000 rpm. The idea that a lithium battery is only going to last 3 years is absolutely bizarre and extremely laughable.

quote: Currently manufactured EV operate on batteries that must be replaced after as soon as three years of use.

Still grasping are we? A warranty and actually getting 8 solid years out of it are two very different things. GM can tell you whatever they want, because there hasn't been enough time lapsed to prove otherwise. WARRANTY = FREE REPLACEMENT.. and that's about it. Additionally, I'm using my arguments for/against all the available options as it pertains to the EV market. The Volt is just a small, very small, no one wants to really buy... sample you're using to construct an argument that all EVs will have some sort of >8 battery lifespan.

.... Deep-cycle lead batteries are expensive and have a shorter life than the vehicle itself, typically needing replacement every 3 years."

Here's another study for your morning coffee! I know... the look of disappointment on your face must be priceless. Not sure if this is the same "Hummer" guys that wrote this, but I'm sure you'll be able to debunk this study with your vast amount of intellect and insight on the markets.